NANA DR. BOAKYE DANKWA III v. AKYEMPEM MENSAH & 4 ORS
April 12, 2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- Sowah, J.A. (PRESIDING)
- Oppong, J.A.
- Mensah-Homiah, J.A.
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Property and Real Estate Law
April 12, 2022
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal (per Cecilia H. Sowah, J.A., presiding) allowed the appeal of Nana Boakye Darkwa III (Dr. Richard Boakye Owoare), who sued as Chief of Pankese for himself and the Pankese Stool, after the High Court, Nkawkaw, dismissed his interlocutory injunction application—and effectively the suit—on want of capacity. The defendants denied his chieftaincy and relied on a 2019 High Court ruling (exhibit HBD) and a 2018 Traditional Council search (HBD1). The appellant produced a 2017 letter of introduction (exhibit 4) from the Akyem Kotoku Traditional Council affirming his valid enstoolment. Applying section 57(1) of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008, the Supreme Court’s Ex‑Parte Ahanta decision, and Abbey v. Antwi, the Court held that capacity to sue over stool land depends on valid customary enstoolment, not gazetting. It set aside the High Court’s ruling and remitted the case for merits determination.
SOWAH, (J.A):
This appeal is by the plaintiff/appellant against the decision of the High Court, Nkawkaw dated 10th March 2021 which dismissed his application for interlocutory injunction and in effect the whole action on the ground of want of capacity.
Brief Facts:
The plaintiff/applicant/appellant who shall hereafter be referred to as the ‘plaintiff’, “suing in his capacity as the Chief of Pankese for himself and for the people of Pankese Stool” sought amongst other reliefs, a declaration of title to a parcel of land said to be stool land, an order cancelling mining licences issued by the 4th defendant to the 1st to 3rd and the 5th defendants and recovery of possession.
The writ of summons and statement of claim was followed with an application for interlocutory injunction against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th defendants' from working on portions of plaintiffs' lands for the purpose of sand-winning pending final determination of the Suit.
In an amended Statement of Defence and an affidavit in opposition filed on the same day 14th October 2020, the defendants’ denied that the plaintiff was the Chief of Pankese.
When the application for interlocutory injunction came up for hearing on 15th October, 2020 the trial Judge stated:
“The case is adjourned to 10th November, 2020 for plaintiff/applicant to satisfy the court that he is indeed a Chief. On that date, whether such evidence has been filed or not, the court will take a date for ruling.”
Before the plaintiff could act in response, the defendants' filed a supplementary affidavit to which they attached a Ruling given on 21st March, 2019 by Ward-Acquah, J. sitting at the High Court, Koforidua in a suit entitled Nana Yaa Asantewaa vs. Nana Ansah Sasraku Nipa & another [exhibit HBD] as well as the result of a search conducted at the Akyem Kotoku Traditional Council on 13th December, 2018 [Exhibit HBD 1].
In the Search, the Registrar had answered “No” to the question:
“Whether from the records of the Traditional Council any person has officially been introduced to the Traditional Council as Chief of Pankese?”
And to the question:
“Whether you have forwarded the CD Forms of the said Chief of Pankese for registration to the National House of Chiefs”
The answer was:
“No CD Forms have been forwarded from our outfit concerning the said Chief.”
The plaintiff in turn also filed a supplementary affidavit in which it was deposed that the applicant “is the duly customary nominated, elected, selected and ins